Supreme Court Knocks Down California’s Ban On Indoor Church Services, Allows Singing Ban to Remain

The Supreme Court ruled late Friday that the California government cannot ban and prohibit indoor church services, giving a small victory to churches that have been defying the government and staying open, while also only being a half-measure that will continue to invite persecution.

Church-hating tyrant Governor Gavin Newsom’s office issued revised guidelines for indoor church gatherings services on Saturday. The new missives allow the people to gather but continued limiting attendance at 25% capacity. It also left in place restrictions on singing, chanting and social distancing, with fines in place for those who disobey.

Newson’s office stated that they will continue to enforce the ban on worship and capacity limits, citing that it is for the church’s own protection, with press secretary Daniel Lopez, saying in a statement:

We will continue to enforce the restrictions the Supreme Court left in place and, after reviewing the decision, we will issue revised guidelines for worship services to continue to protect the lives of Californians.

The court victory, which will benefit all churches, has largely been driven by Che Ahn of Harvest Rock Church in Pasadena CA, who has sustained criticism for almost a year while embroiled in on-going expensive litigation against the state in order to lift the ban. He was ebullient after the victory but said it’s not over yet.

While we have come under fire from some community members, we stand firm that the fruit of meeting in person lies in the spiritual, emotional and physical healing that worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ has brought to so many throughout the world.

Commenting on the awfulness of California blanket ban, Chief Justice John Roberts said of the case “that the maximum number of adherents who can safely worship in the most cavernous cathedral is zero—appears to reflect not expertise or discretion, but instead insufficient appreciation or consideration of the interests at stake.”

As far as the singing ban and still being in place, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas stated that they would have kept California from enforcing its singing ban, yet Justice Amy Coney Barrett disagreed, speaking on behalf of her and Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

She wrote that it wasn’t clear whether or not the prohibitions on singing were being applied “across the board” and that “if a chorister can sing in a Hollywood studio but not in her church, California’s regulations cannot be viewed as neutral.” While the ban could remain, for now, she said that the churches who sued ought to “submit new evidence to a lower court that the singing ban is not being applied generally.”


Enjoy our content? GREAT! Unfortunately, ad revenue for truth-telling websites has been severely hampered by censorship and de-platforming. This ministry isn't free to run, and finding people willing to support polemical theology is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

So we have some great ways for you to EASILY support our work that will take less than 3 minutes of your time to do.
First, check our our page explaining this all at detail at

But in short, you can support us on Patreon and get exclusive rewards like the FULL non-truncated episodes of the bi-weely Polemics Report podcast ONLY available on your Patreon app. It's super easy to use. Get exclusive updates from JD. Get all that and support our work for only $5.95 a month. You'll also get a PAID subscription to 'The Insurgency' "banned news blasts" once a day for 50 news links to banned content you can't find in social media. For other patron tiers, you can join us live via zoom to interact with JD during the Bulldgomatic Bible study, get free theology books in the mail, and more.

Or, if you don't want to use Patreon and don't want the rewards, subscribe to 'The Insurgency' "banned news blasts" for free (three days a week) or $7 dollars a month (notice that's a dollar more than getting it through Patreon) or $70 dollars a year. Instead of you scouring the news, let our Gideon Knox News team do the news-hunting FOR YOU and it will save you time finding real news.

And finally, you can give a one time financial gift through Giving Fuel . It's also super-easy to set up and takes only minutes.

Because JD gets banned in Facebook a lot, you can also find him on Twitter here And if you're into politics, check out Montana Daily Gazette. If you just want his sermons, check out his SermonAudio feed

3 thoughts on “Supreme Court Knocks Down California’s Ban On Indoor Church Services, Allows Singing Ban to Remain

  1. How long has it been since it’s been a real protestant let alone a reformed one on the Supreme Court? Has there ever been one? Neil Gorsuch is the only “protestant“ and I don’t think he protests too much, especially as an Episcopalian. One of the feelings of trumps presidency was nominating him into Roman Catholics to the court during his time. Even if they make some conservative judgments, you can’t really trust them, as John Roberts, another Roman Catholic, has proven. That said, the most reliable one, although again, he is a Roman Catholic unfortunately, is Clarence Thomas.

    By the way, speaking of him, how could Joe Biden ever get “elected” the way he brutalized Clarence Thomas 30 years ago during the judge’s confirmation hearing along with all the other demeaning things Biden has said about minorities throughout his career? And then again, was he really elected but rather appointed?

    1. You raise an excellent point about the appointment of judges. Whenever evangelicals were surveyed they consistently said that the selection of judges was a major motivator for voting for Trump. He had three opportunities in four years to nominate an evangelical and went with a catholic every time. I think he could have had even more support from evangelicals than he did if he had tossed even one nomination their way; not that it would matter if cheating is allowed. Thomas and Scalia are/were quite reliable. The others sometimes less so. Gorsuch is Episcopalian now but also was raised Catholic. Our majority Protestant country is now ruled by seven Catholics and two Jews.

  2. There is nothing good or victorious about the supreme court’s ruling. One, it reduces the church to the same level as a secular business, and the church is never supposed to be a business. Besides that, what if the State of California decides to shut down grocery stores?? Then the church has to comply because it is now no different then all the other businesses. The first amendment sets the church above an average business. Two, the limitations on the singing and capacity were upheld which suggest that the government still has a right to legislate to the church. Our forefathers understood that the government has no right or authority to legislate to that which belongs to Christ. I personally see nothing good in this ruling.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *